education sciences

Article

Instructional Coaching for Implementing VisibleLearning: A Model for Translating Researchinto Practice

Jim Knight

Center for Research on Learning, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA;jim@instructionalcoaching.com; Tel.: +1-805-336-5789

Received: 20 March 2019; Accepted: 1 May 2019; Published: 10 May 2019�����������������

Abstract: Visible Learning has been one of the most influential research initiatives conducted ineducation in the past few decades, and at the same time, instructional coaching is becoming one ofthe most popular forms of professional development. This paper considers how the implementationof Visible Learning may be supported through instructional coaches by: (a) offering a brief summaryof the central tenants of Visible Learning; (b) summarizing the foundational research on instructionalcoaching conducted at the Kansas Coaching Project at The University of Kansas Center for Researchon Learning; (c) describing what those findings reveal about effective instructional coaching practices;and (d) pointing out how the research findings suggest that instructional coaching should be used tosupport the implementation of Visible Learning or any other educational innovations.

Keywords: instructional coaches coaching; visible Learning; translating research into practice;educational research

1. Introduction

One of the most formidable challenges facing educational leaders today is the challenge oftranslating research into practice. In the United States, billions of dollars are spent annually onprofessional development activities designed to provide the tools necessary for teachers to makeevidence-based practices a central part of their teaching (determining the exact cost of professionaldevelopment is difficult, if not impossible, but in 2015, one study estimated that the 50 largest districts inAmerica spend eight billion dollars on professional development annually). Unfortunately, professionaldevelopment often has little impact on what actually happens in classrooms, despite the money andeffort expended [1].

This paper explores how this challenge may be addressed through the use of instructionalcoaching. Specifically, the paper will suggest how one widely implemented educational construct,Visible Learning [2–4], may be implemented through the use of instructional coaches.

Instructional coaches are increasingly serving as facilitators of professional learning, and giventhe widespread use of Visible Learning, exploring how implementation of this construct may besupported through instructional coaches seems relevant and important. This paper addresses thistopic by: (a) offering a brief summary of the central tenants of Visible Learning; (b) summarizingthe foundational research on instructional coaching conducted at the Kansas Coaching Project at TheUniversity of Kansas Center for Research on Learning; (c) discussing how the coaching process derivedfrom those findings may be utilized to support the implementation of Visible Learning and otherinnovations; and (d) concluding with suggestions for future research on coaching and Visible Learning.

Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 101; doi:10.3390/educsci9020101 www.mdpi.com/journal/education

Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 101 2 of 16

2. Visible Learning

Visible Learning is one of the most influential research initiatives conducted in the field ofeducation in the past few decades. Around the world, educators are reading and learning aboutthe highest-leverage factors for student achievement, as identified in Hattie’s evolving lists of bestpractices [2–4].

This original work on Visible Learning was conducted over a 15- to 20-year period, and it “involvedanalyzing more than 800 meta-analyses composing around 80,000 studies in which an estimated . . . 250million learners took part” [4]. As of 2018, approximately 600 additional studies had been conducted tofurther refine identification of the factors most likely to have a positive impact on student achievement.

To conduct their research, Hattie and his colleagues [2–4] identified approximately 150 factorssuggested in the literature as having an impact on student achievement. Then, to determine whichfactors had the greatest impact, the researchers compared the effect sizes of all factors. Effect size isusually calculated by comparing the averages of two conditions; for example, classes where cooperativelearning is not used by teachers and students vs. classes where cooperative learning is used by teachersand students. “The beauty of effect sizes,” according to Hattie and Zierer [4], “is that, once computed,they can be reasonably compared across many interventions” (p. ix). The greater the effect size,generally speaking, the greater the positive impact on student achievement.

Hattie’s findings have laid the foundation for many additional publications on related topics,including feedback [5] assessment [6] literacy [7] mathematics [7] and science [8]. This paper focuseson Visible Learning as it is described in Hattie and Zierer’s most recent [2] comprehensive discussion,10 Mindframes for Visible Learning: Teaching for Success. The 10 mindframes are as follows:

1. Visible Learning is about teachers making their impact visible. To make learning visible,teachers should use formative evaluation (d = 0.90) and consider employing Response to Intervention(d = 1.07). Hattie and Zierer [4] suggest that teachers make learning visible through a process that maybe remembered by the somewhat gloomy acronym, DIE (the authors put this in more positive terms,saying that the acronym may be remembered by acknowledging that teachers are “to die for”).

Diagnosis—understanding what each student brings to the lesson, his or her motivations, andwillingness to engage.

Intervention—having multiple interventions, such that if one does not work with the student,the teacher changes to another. It also involves knowing high-probability interventions, recognizingwhen to switch, and not creating blame language about why the student is not learning.

Evaluation—knowing the skills, having multiple methods, and collaboratively debating themagnitude of impact from the interventions (p. 8).

2. I see assessment as informing my impact and next steps. After teachers gather data, theyneed to adapt their teaching so that more students learn. Simply put, teachers should “use assignmentsto clarify the following questions: Which of my goals did I achieve in the lesson? What material did Isuccessfully get across to the learners? Which methods turned out to be useful for fostering learning?Which media were useful for fostering learning?” [4].

3. I collaborate with my peers and my students about my conceptions of progress and myimpact. Professional learning is enhanced when teachers cooperate, exchange ideas, and shareresponsibilities. Hattie and Zierer [4] cite the results of a study by Eells [9] as evidence that collectiveefficacy has a high impact on student achievement (d = 1.22). They also claim that micro-teaching withvideo (d = 0.88) and professional development (d = 0.51) contribute to better professional learning, andconsequently higher student achievement.

4. I am a change agent and believe all students can improve. According to Hattie and Zierer [4],“if the student is not learning, it is because we have not yet found the strategy to make learning happen.Successful learning . . . is the responsibility of all around the learner . . . [and] this necessarily involvesseeing oneself as a change agent” (p. 40). To that end, the authors suggest that teachers employdifferent classroom management strategies (d = 0.52), “use preventive strategies,” and “try to get acritical mass of learners to believe in . . . [their] . . . visions” (p. 57).

Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 101 3 of 16

5. I strive for challenge and not merely “doing your best.” Echoing Csíkszentmihályi’s findingsabout engagement, Hattie and Zierer [4] contend that the best learning is just a little more challengingthat the learner’s current ability level. Work that is too hard is frustrating and may cause anxiety; workthat is too easy is boring. Indeed, being boring has one of the most negative effect sizes of any factorstudied by Hattie and his colleagues (d = −0.49). Factors related to this mindframe include teacherclarity (d = 0.75), goals (d = 0.50), and students skipping grades (d = 0.68). Students who have goalsand who get timely feedback on their progress toward those goals are more likely to move towardswhat Csíkszentmihályi calls “a state of flow” and, therefore, more likely to achieve.

6. I give and help students understand feedback, and I interpret and act on feedback given tome. Feedback is one of the most powerful influences on student learning (d = 0.75). One way teacherscan get and give feedback is through classroom discussion made possible by effective questioning(d = 0.48). Hattie and Zierer [4] list three major feedback questions: “Where am I going? How am Igoing? and Where to next?” (p. 80). The most powerful form of feedback,” the authors explain, “isfrom students to teachers about their impact on the students” (p. 75).

7. I engage as much in dialogue as monologue. To foster better learning, teachers need to“get the balance right between their talking and explaining and listening and privileging studentdiscussion” [4]. The authors report several studies that reveal that teaching is too often monological.For example, after reviewing 1500h of recordings, Clinton, Cairns, Mclaren, and Simpson (2014) foundthat teachers talk 89% of the time. To make classrooms more dialogical (d = 0.82), teachers shouldconsider structuring lessons to include such learning structures as cooperative learning (d = 0.59),jigsaw (d = 1.09), and small-group learning (d = 0.49). Cooperative learning, according to Hattie andZierer [4], is more effective when it is supported by direct instruction (d = 0.59).

8. I explicitly inform students from the outset what successful impact looks like. To succeed,students need to know what success will look like. For that reason, “The teacher needs to know, andthe students informed, what success criteria of performance are to be expected and when and whatstudents will be held accountable for from the lesson/activity” [4]. Teachers should formulate successcriteria, clearly communicate the criteria, ensure students understand the criteria by asking them forfeedback, use case studies to illustrate the criteria, and revisit the criteria to see what changes need tobe made.

9. I build relationships and trust so that learning can occur in a place where it is safe to makemistakes and learn from others. Teacher-student relationships are an important part of effectiveteaching (d = 0.72). To increase the likelihood that students will succeed, teachers should reflect ontheir expectations (d = 0.43), avoid negative expectations, and reinforce students when they see themtrying. Teachers should also pay attention to their language, use humor and cheerfulness, and strive toalways be honest, fair, and credible.

10. I focus on learning and the language of learning. An essential part of this mindframe isrecognizing how important it is to determine each student’s prior knowledge, or learning level, andthen to use that as the point of departure for new learning in the classroom. As part of that effort,teachers should try to assess students’ self-efficacy, motivation, way of working, and conscientiousness.There are many ways to assess students’ initial learning level that have high effect sizes. Teachers shouldalso be aware of cognitive overload and ensure that assigned work is neither too challenging nor too easy.

Visible Learning sets forth a coherent and powerful model for improving student achievement.The challenge, as laid out in the introduction to this paper, is to find a methodology for translating theVisible Learning research and ideas into practice. The contention of this author is that instructionalcoaching offers a fitting methodology.

3. Instructional Coaching Research (All of the Articles Referenced Here Related to Research onInstructional Coaching May Be Downloaded at instructionalcoaching.com/research)

The instructional coaching model described below is the result of more than 20 years of systematicstudy. Research began in the years 1997–2003 with researchers interviewing more than 300 teachers

Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 101 4 of 16

about their experiences with professional development. The findings were not positive. Interviewsrevealed that teachers: (a) had low expectations for professional development; (b) did not find thatprofessional development met their needs; (c) complained that professional developers often failed torecognize the expertise that teachers already had; and (d) rarely implemented what they heard aboutin workshops [10].

Another study [11] explored professional developers’ way of being, building on the findingthat many teachers found the approach of professional developers to be a barrier to implementation.Specifically, the study compared a partnership approach to professional development (grounded inthe principles of equality, choice, voice, reflection, dialogue, praxis, and reciprocity) with a traditionalapproach (based on direct instruction emphasizing fidelity of implementation. The principles werebased on a synthesis of theories from education, business, psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology,and philosophy of science, in particular, the works of Bernstein, Block, Bohm, Eisler, Freire, andSenge [12–17].

The study focused on the engagement, happiness, learning, and expectation for implementationof participants in two workshops, one based on partnership principles and the other on fidelity ofimplementation. Participants in the former group were significantly more engaged and happier,produced higher scores on tests of what they learned, and reported they were 4.5 times (58–14) morelikely to implement the reading strategy they had learned during the partnership approach than theone they had learned during the traditional approach [11].

Subsequently, funding from the U.S. Department of Education GEAR UP program supportedseveral years of study of onsite professional development. The onsite professional developerswere first described as learning consultants [18] then as instructional collaborators, and finally asinstructional coaches [19]. During this time, the results of a number of informal studies allowedfor development and refinement of what became an instructional coaching model (no model foranything similar to instructional coaching existed at that time). Although the preliminary studieslacked rigor [20], researchers were convinced that instructional coaching was a promising model forsupporting implementation of evidence-based teaching strategies.

In 2007, researchers completed a more rigorous study of instructional coaching as it was beingimplemented by coaches studied by The University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning(KU-CRL) at the time. For this study, 51 teachers attended an after-school workshop on an inclusiveteaching strategy, The Unit Organizer [21]. After the workshop, teachers were randomly assigned totwo groups, one group that received coaching and another that did not receive coaching. As Figures 1–4indicate, according to blind observations, the teachers who received coaching (a) were more likely toimplement (87% to 33%); (b) taught with closer fidelity to the original model based on observations (7,7, 6, 5, compared with 3, 3, 2, 1); (c) were more likely to continue to use the teaching routine (68% to18%); and (d) reported higher expectations of using the teaching routine in the future (96% to 35%).

Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 16

Interviews revealed that teachers: (a) had low expectations for professional development; (b) did not

find that professional development met their needs; (c) complained that professional developers

often failed to recognize the expertise that teachers already had; and (d) rarely implemented what

they heard about in workshops [10].

Another study [11] explored professional developers’ way of being, building on the finding that

many teachers found the approach of professional developers to be a barrier to implementation.

Specifically, the study compared a partnership approach to professional development (grounded in

the principles of equality, choice, voice, reflection, dialogue, praxis, and reciprocity) with a traditional

approach (based on direct instruction emphasizing fidelity of implementation. The principles were

based on a synthesis of theories from education, business, psychology, sociology, cultural

anthropology, and philosophy of science, in particular, the works of Bernstein, Block, Bohm, Eisler,

Freire, and Senge [12–17].

The study focused on the engagement, happiness, learning, and expectation for implementation

of participants in two workshops, one based on partnership principles and the other on fidelity of

implementation. Participants in the former group were significantly more engaged and happier,

produced higher scores on tests of what they learned, and reported they were 4.5 times (58–14) more

likely to implement the reading strategy they had learned during the partnership approach than the

one they had learned during the traditional approach [11].

Subsequently, funding from the U.S. Department of Education GEAR UP program supported

several years of study of onsite professional development. The onsite professional developers were

first described as learning consultants [18] then as instructional collaborators, and finally as

instructional coaches [19]. During this time, the results of a number of informal studies allowed for

development and refinement of what became an instructional coaching model (no model for anything

similar to instructional coaching existed at that time). Although the preliminary studies lacked rigor

[20], researchers were convinced that instructional coaching was a promising model for supporting

implementation of evidence-based teaching strategies.

In 2007, researchers completed a more rigorous study of instructional coaching as it was being

implemented by coaches studied by The University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning (KU-

CRL) at the time. For this study, 51 teachers attended an after-school workshop on an inclusive

teaching strategy, The Unit Organizer [21]. After the workshop, teachers were randomly assigned to

two groups, one group that received coaching and another that did not receive coaching. As Figures

1–4 indicate, according to blind observations, the teachers who received coaching (a) were more likely

to implement (87% to 33%); (b) taught with closer fidelity to the original model based on observations

(7, 7, 6, 5, compared with 3, 3, 2, 1); (c) were more likely to continue to use the teaching routine (68%

to 18%); and (d) reported higher expectations of using the teaching routine in the future (96% to 35%).

Figure 1. Implementation of the unit organizer [22]. Figure 1. Implementation of the unit organizer [22].

Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 101 5 of 16Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16

Figure 2. Continued use of the unit organizer [22].

Figure 3. Intent to use the unit organizer [22].

Figure 4. Fidelity of implementation [22].

Figure 2. Continued use of the unit organizer [22].

Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16

Figure 2. Continued use of the unit organizer [22].

Figure 3. Intent to use the unit organizer [22].

Figure 4. Fidelity of implementation [22].

Figure 3. Intent to use the unit organizer [22].

Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16

Figure 2. Continued use of the unit organizer [22].

Figure 3. Intent to use the unit organizer [22].

Figure 4. Fidelity of implementation [22]. Figure 4. Fidelity of implementation [22].

Researchers at the Kansas Coaching Project utilized design research [23] to facilitate improvementand refinement of the instructional coaching model. Over time, the design methodology was modified

Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 101 6 of 16

to create lean-design research (LDR), which combined design research with the research methodsdescribed by Ries in The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation toCreate Radically Successful Businesses [24]. See Figure 5 for an illustration of LDR.

Over five years, the instructional coaching process was significantly improved. Refinementsincluded coaches and teachers using video to get a clear picture of reality, a revised model for goalsetting (PEERS goals, described below), use of more effective questioning skills, implementation of avariety of ways to demonstrate teaching strategies, and a streamlined coaching process.

Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16

Researchers at the Kansas Coaching Project utilized design research [23] to facilitate improvement and refinement of the instructional coaching model. Over time, the design methodology was modified to create lean-design research (LDR), which combined design research with the research methods described by Ries in The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful Businesses [24]. See Figure 5 for an illustration of LDR.

Over five years, the instructional coaching process was significantly improved. Refinements included coaches and teachers using video to get a clear picture of reality, a revised model for goal setting (PEERS goals, described below), use of more effective questioning skills, implementation of a variety of ways to demonstrate teaching strategies, and a streamlined coaching process.

Figure 5. Lean-design research [25].

At the same time, researchers also conducted a multiple-baseline study of coaching to measure its impact on teaching and student engagement. Again, observation data showed that teachers used significantly more targeted teaching practices after they were coached than before. Additionally, measures of student engagement showed significant gains in time-on-task behavior after coaching (d = 1.03).

Other studies have been conducted over the past 20 years, including a review of the research literature [26] and a study of the characteristics of effective coaches [27]. Together, the studies described here and in various books related to instructional coaching [20,25,28–31] have led to the articulation of a simple model for instructional coaching, as described below.

4. Instructional Coaching Model

The research on instructional coaching conducted at the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning has resulted in the development of a deceptively simple instruction coaching cycle. The cycle involves three elements: Identify, Learn, and Improve (see Figure 6).

Figure 5. Lean-design research [25].

At the same time, researchers also conducted a multiple-baseline study of coaching to measureits impact on teaching and student engagement. Again, observation data showed that teachers usedsignificantly more targeted teaching practices after they were coached than before. Additionally,measures of student engagement showed significant gains in time-on-task behavior after coaching(d = 1.03).

Other studies have been conducted over the past 20 years, including a review of the researchliterature [26] and a study of the characteristics of effective coaches [27]. Together, the studies describedhere and in various books related to instructional coaching [20,25,28–31] have led to the articulation ofa simple model for instructional coaching, as described below.

4. Instructional Coaching Model

The research on instructional coaching conducted at the University of Kansas Center for Researchon Learning has resulted in the development of a deceptively simple instruction coaching cycle. Thecycle involves three elements: Identify, Learn, and Improve (see Figure 6).

During the Identify stage, coaches partner with teachers to identify a clear picture of reality,a PEERS goal, and a strategy the teacher will implement to hit the goal. During the Learn stage thecoach helps prepare the teacher to hit the goal by clearly describing the strategy to be implemented,often with the help of a checklist, and then provides a model of the strategy in one or more ways.Finally, during the Improve stage, the coach supports the teacher as he or she makes adaptations untilthe goal is met.

Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 101 7 of 16

Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16

Figure 6. The impact cycle [25].

During the Identify stage, coaches partner with teachers to identify a clear picture of reality, a PEERS goal, and a strategy the teacher will implement to hit the goal. During the Learn stage the coach helps prepare the teacher to hit the goal by clearly describing the strategy to be implemented, often with the help of a checklist, and then provides a model of the strategy in one or more ways. Finally, during the Improve stage, the coach supports the teacher as he or she makes adaptations until the goal is met.

The definition of instructional coaching underlying the model is as follows: “Instructional coaches (a) partner with teachers to (b) analyze current reality, (c) set goals, (d) identify and explain teaching strategies to hit the goals, and (e) provide support until the goals are met” [25]. A description of each of these elements follows.

A fundamental tenet of instructional coaching is that, although described sequentially in this paper, it is not a simplistic one-size-fits-all formula for improvement. Rather, instructional coaches respond to the context in which coaching occurs, shaping what they do based on students’ needs, teachers’ insights, and other important factors. As such, the approach has been described as informed-adaptive [28].

Thus, informed coaches know a lot about the situation where coaching occurs. They have a deep understanding of individual teachers’ strengths and concerns, and students’ unique characteristics. They are emotionally intelligent, which means they are skilled at fostering trust and building relationships that are likely to lead to learning. Finally, informed coaches have a deep knowledge of instructional practices that enables them to offer more options to teachers who partner with them to meet students’ needs.

Adaptive coaches respond to the unique contexts in which coaching occurs. Although instructional coaching, as described here, occurs within a framework, that framework is not a formula to be strictly followed, but rather a container for coaching conversations. Thus, each coaching conversation is individualized to a given context. That is, the questions coaches ask, the goals that are set, the teaching practices chosen by teachers, the way teachers learn and practice new strategies, and the modifications that are made are all unique to the partnership between teacher and coach. So, while instructional coaching involves a structure, in action it is individualized process, uniquely co-constructed by each coach and teacher.

Figure 6. The impact cycle [25].

The definition of instructional coaching underlying the model is as follows: “Instructional coaches(a) partner with teachers to (b) analyze current reality, (c) set goals, (d) identify and explain teachingstrategies to hit the goals, and (e) provide support until the goals are met” [25]. A description of eachof these elements follows.

A fundamental tenet of instructional coaching is that, although described sequentially in this paper,it is not a simplistic one-size-fits-all formula for improvement. Rather, instructional coaches respond tothe context in which coaching occurs, shaping what they do based on students’ needs, teachers’ insights,and other important factors. As such, the approach has been described as informed-adaptive [28].

Thus, informed coaches know a lot about the situation where coaching occurs. They have a deepunderstanding of individual teachers’ strengths and concerns, and students’ unique characteristics.They are emotionally intelligent, which means they are skilled at fostering trust and buildingrelationships that are likely to lead to learning. Finally, informed coaches have a deep knowledge ofinstructional practices that enables them to offer more options to teachers who partner with them tomeet students’ needs.

Adaptive coaches respond to the unique contexts in which coaching occurs. Although instructionalcoaching, as described here, occurs within a framework, that framework is not a formula to be strictlyfollowed, but rather a container for coaching conversations. Thus, each coaching conversation isindividualized to a given context. That is, the questions coaches ask, the goals that are set, the teachingpractices chosen by teachers, the way teachers learn and practice new strategies, and the modificationsthat are made are all unique to the partnership between teacher and coach. So, while instructionalcoaching involves a structure, in action it is individualized process, uniquely co-constructed by eachcoach and teacher.

For a construct such as Visible Learning to be implemented in a deep and effective way,a professional development model such as instructional coaching is essential. The rest of thispaper explores what instructional coaching for Visible Learning would look like.

The following are components of the instructional coaching process that have emerged from thefindings of the studies summarized above.

Partnership approach. A fundamental tenet of the instructional coaching model is thatinstructional coaches partner with teachers [11]. That is, they see themselves as equals with teachers,recognizing that every teacher brings expertise to a coaching conversation. As a result, instructionalcoaches do not tell teachers what to do, but at the same time, they do not withhold any expertise theyhave that might help a teacher meet a goal. Instructional coaches share ideas dialogically, balancingadvocacy (explaining practices) with inquiry (asking questions and listening) [14] in a manner that

Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 101 8 of 16

acknowledges that each teacher will likely need to modify practices to meet the unique needs of hisor her students and to take advantage of his or her unique strengths as teachers. When they explainpractices, instructional coaches are precise but provisional, always recognizing that teachers shouldand will have the last word on how practices are implemented.

Application to Visible Learning. Coaches who position teachers as partners need to employ asophisticated approach to communication about Visible Learning. On the one hand, they must have adeep understanding of Visible Learning and be able to describe each of the elements of the frameworkclearly, otherwise, teachers will struggle to learn. At the same time, when taking the partnershipapproach, coaches must structure coaching so that teachers use their own knowledge and experience todecide how Visible Learning will be implemented. Coaches taking the partnership approach providesupport when needed (perhaps suggesting ways in which goals may be measured or suggestingteaching strategies teachers might implement to reach goals) while also ensuring that teachers makethe final decisions about what they will do in their classrooms. When coaches take the partnershipapproach, they ensure that teachers use their professional discretion to determine the best practices fortheir classroom.

4.1. Identify

Identify a clear picture of current reality. Once teachers are enrolled in coaching, the coachingprocess begins with getting a clear picture of reality. Because of perceptual errors, most people do nothave a clear picture of what it looks like when they do what they do [30,32]. Therefore, before settinggoals, teachers need to get a clear picture of what learning and teaching look like in their classrooms. Ifteachers set goals without a clear picture of reality, they may lack enthusiasm for the goal or choosea goal that does not address a top need in their classroom. Instructional coaches help teachers get aclear picture of reality by (a) video recording a lesson and sharing it with teachers; (b) interviewingstudents and sharing the interview data; (c) reviewing student work with the teachers; or (d) gatheringobjective data in the classroom and then sharing that data with the collaborating teacher [25].

Application to Visible Learning. Getting a clear picture of reality can occur in many ways andinvolve many aspects of Visible Learning; a few examples will be described here. To get a clear pictureof reality, coaches can video-record lessons so that teachers can view the video to consider the level ofengagement, the amount of monologue vs. dialogue, the effectiveness of questions asked, the clarity ofinstruction, or the amount of wasted, non-instructional time in their classroom. Coaches might alsointerview students to assess their learning level, motivation (by asking students to discuss their goals,strategies, and agency), or interest in learning.

Another important way in which coaches can help teachers get a clear picture of reality is byhelping them use different tools for analyzing student work. This is most powerful when teachershave already developed learning outcomes, success criteria, and formative assessments of studentlearning, perhaps in an intensive learning team [28]. Coaches can also observe lessons, gather data, andshare the data with teachers. Again, coaches could look for certain factors that are identified withinVisible Learning as important contributors to student achievement. Essentially, coaches could gathermany of the factors identified above in the section on video, including students’ level of engagement,the amount of monologue and dialogue, the effectiveness of questions teachers ask, the clarity ofinstruction, and the amount of wasted, non-instructional time.

Identify goals. A second finding from our research over the past 20 years is that coaching ismost effective when it is a goal-directed activity. As John Campbell, founder of Growth CoachingInternational (www.growthcoaching.org), has said, “if there’s no goal, it is just a nice conversation”(personal communication, 2017). Teachers who implement new practices most effectively do sowhen they have clearly articulated goals. Utilizing lean-design research, we interviewed experts,reviewed the literature, and learned from coaches who implemented and revised their goal settinguntil we identified the characteristics of effective goals, summarized in the acronym PEERS: Powerful,Emotionally Compelling, Easy, Reachable, and Student-Focused. Powerful goals are goals that make a

Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 101 9 of 16

socially significant difference in students’ lives. Emotionally compelling goals are goals that teachersreally want to hit. According to Heath and Heath [33], the best goal is not “just big and compelling; itshould hit you in the gut” (p. 76). Easy goals are not watered-down, weak goals, but powerful goalsdescribed in a simple manner. Any powerful goal in a classroom involves significant challenges—whatmight be called “productive struggle.” Coaches just need to help teachers identify the most efficientand effective way to hit the goals.

Reachable goals foster hope. Hope has been identified as consisting of three elements: (a) apreferred future or goal; (b) pathways to the goal; and (c) agency, a belief that the goal can be hit [34].The reachable goals in the instructional coaching model address all three of those elements. First, theyare clearly stated and measurable. Second, they include clearly stated pathways to the preferred futureby identifying strategies teachers can use to hit the goal. Finally, by stating the goal and identifyingstrategies, they help teachers see that they can hit their goals and therefore they increase teacher agency.

Finally, student-focused goals make a powerful difference in students’ lives, addressing both thestudents’ achievement and engagement needs, especially their need for emotional engagement. Notsurprisingly, therefore, interviews with coaches have surfaced where they find teacher-focused goalsto be less powerful for sustained change than student-focused goals [25].

Over six years, coaches partnered with University of Kansas researchers to refine a list of questionsthat coaches could use during coaching sessions. The questions are not a recipe, and each coachingconversation is a back-and-forth interaction, a bit like a ping-pong game. That is, the coach cannot ponguntil the teacher pings, so to speak, so each conversation looks different, and coaches will ultimatelydevelop their own list of questions. Nevertheless, the following questions provide a starting point forcoaches partnering with teachers to set and meet goals.

Identify Questions

Reality

What’s on your mind?On a scale of 1–10, with one being the worst lesson you’ve taught and 10 being the best, how

would you rank that lesson?Why did you give it that number?Why didn’t you give it a lower number?What pleased you?And what else?

Change

What would have to change to move the lesson closer to a 10?If you woke up tomorrow, and a miracle happened so that your students were doing exactly what

you would like them to do, what would be different? What would be the first signs be that the miracleoccurred?” (Solution-Focused Coaching)

If this class was your dream class, what would be different?What would your students be doing differently if your class was a 10?Tell me more about what that would look like?How could you measure that change?Do you want that to be your goal?If you could hit that goal, would it really matter to you?

Application to Visible Learning. Goal-directed coaching flips the traditional understanding ofhow professional development proceeds. That is, rather than focusing on the teaching practices at theheart of Visible Learning, instructional coaching, as defined by the Kansas Coaching Project, beginswith a powerful student-focused goal identified by the teacher in partnership with the coach. Then theteacher and coach consider strategies the teacher may implement to hit the goal. At this point in the

Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 101 10 of 16

coaching cycle, the coach suggests strategies for the teacher to consider. When teachers start with astudent-focused goal, based on a clear picture of reality, they are often more motivated to hit the goal,and the goal provides an objective standard for assessing effective implementation.

There are numerous powerful, student-focused goals. For example, goals might be that (a) studentsare able to write a well-organized effective paragraph, as measured by a single-point rubric; (b) studentsmaster course vocabulary as measured by weekly tests; or (c) students demonstrate a deep knowledgeof core concepts, as measured by short answer responses. The most powerful goals extend beyondunits to essential knowledge that can be applied in a variety of settings, and once goals are set, teacherand coach can turn to identifying the most powerful strategy or strategies that can be implemented tomeet the goal.

Identify teaching strategies. Instructional coaching is about improving instruction to improveoutcomes related to both student learning and well-being. Therefore, once a goal has been set,an instructional coach partners with teachers to identify a strategy the teacher will implement to hithis or her goal. Sometimes teachers are able to identify the strategy they want to implement withoutsuggestions from the coach. At other times, when a teacher appears to be searching for suggestions, acoach will share options, usually after asking the teacher a question such as, “Would you like me toshare some ideas I’ve got about strategies you might consider?” [35].

Application to Visible Learning. Once the teacher has identified a goal, the coach and teachercollaborate to identify what strategy or strategies the teacher will implement to hit the goal. Mostfrequently, strategies are those identified as powerful through Hattie’s synthesis of meta-analyses [36].Instructional coaches are most helpful to teachers at this stage of the coaching cycle if they can explainto teachers the effect size of strategies in the playbook, and perhaps even explain effect size itself. Forexample, if a teacher sets a goal for students’ writing, the coach could explain that teacher clarity has aneffect size of d = 0.75, formative evaluation has an effect size of d = 0.90, that feedback has an effect sizeof d = 0.75, and that in combination clarity, formative evaluation, and feedback represent a powerfulset of strategies that may be used to hit an achievement goal.

To guide teachers to identify strategies they can use to help students meet goals, coaches can use thefollowing questions, which are largely influenced by the work of Campbell and Van Nieuwerburgh [37].

Options

What teaching strategy could you use to hit that goal?Would you like some suggestions?What advice would you give someone else if this was their problem? (John Campbell)Which option gives you the most energy? (John Campbell)

Next Steps

What are your next steps?What can you accomplish this week to move closer to your goal? And what else can you do?When will you do that?

4.2. Learn

Learn: Explain teaching strategies. To make it easier for teachers to implement instructionalstrategies, coaches can enhance and simplify their explanations through the use of checklists [38]. Thisis not to say that something as complex and artful as teaching can be reduced to a simple checklist.However, when coaches explain a learning structure, such as jigsaw (d = 1.09), they can often make iteasier for teachers to understand by using a checklist. When they describe strategies using checklists,coaches must be precise, but also provisional, encouraging teachers to make changes or modificationsas they see fit, such as the one included in Table 1.

Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 101 11 of 16

Table 1. Checklist: Jigsaw. [26].

Students Know . . .√

What group they will be in for the first activity (perhaps by writing down thenumber for their group).

What group they will be in for the second activity (again, perhaps by writingdown the number for their group).

How they are to work together to learn and summarize what they are learning.

The product they need to create to share with the second group.

Before moving to the second group, that what they have created has got theirteacher’s stamp of approval.

How they should communicate with each other in both groups (in particular,how they should listen and talk).

How they will record (usually take notes or fill out a learning sheet) what theylearn from their fellow students in their second group.

When coaches share checklists, we have found that they are most effective if they take thepartnership approach—that is, their explanations are precise but provisional. If teachers are toimplement a practice effectively, they need a clear and precise explanation. However, no one strategyworks the same in every unique classroom with every unique teacher and student. Therefore, whencoaches describe strategies, we suggest that they ask teachers if they would like to modify the strategyto better meet their students’ needs or to better fit their approach to instruction.

In the event that teachers suggest changes that coaches consider ill-advised; coaches can sharetheir concerns in a way that still positions the teacher as the decision maker. For example, a coach whois concerned that students might not have the social skills necessary for jigsaw might say, “One thingI’m wondering is whether or not you think we need to teach the students some interaction strategiesbefore we set up jigsaw? You know your students best, though. I’m curious to know if you think theycan succeed at the strategy without learning those strategies?”

When teachers are free to modify the strategies they learn from coaches, there is always therisk that they will make “lethal mutations” [39] changes to a strategy that decreases its impact sosignificantly that it loses its effectiveness. This is one major reason why setting goals is important. If ateacher does not implement a strategy effectively, the students likely will not meet the identified goal,so the teacher will need to revisit the way the strategy is taught (see the description of the Improvestage below). In short, the goal provides focus for teaching and learning, increases the teacher’s andstudents’ motivation, and at the same time, functions as an objective standard of excellence. In mostsituations, only strategies that are implemented effectively will achieve the desired results.

Application to Visible Learning. If coaches are to share Visible Learning, they need to knowwhat Visible Learning is; indeed, they will need to have a deep understanding of it. This is consistentwith Hattie’s finding that teacher clarity (d = 0.75) is an important variable in increasing achievement.One way to deepen, reinforce, and support coaches’ knowledge of Visible Learning is for coaches andother educational leaders to create an instructional playbook [40]. A playbook for Visible Learningwould be guided by Hattie’s synthesis of meta-analyses. An instructional playbook includes: (a) a listof the teaching strategies instructional coaches share with teachers to enable them to hit PEERS goals;(b) one-page summaries of the most important information related to each strategy; and (c) all thechecklists coaches would need to describe each strategy.

When creating a playbook for Visible Learning, it is important to keep in mind that VisibleLearning is not just a collection of teaching strategies. In fact, Hattie and Zierer [4] make it clear thatwe misunderstand Visible Learning if we only use the influences at the top of the list while “ignoringthose at the bottom of the rankings” (p. xvii) or ignoring that it is “the overlapping of the many factors”(p. xvii) that will have an impact on achievement.

Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 101 12 of 16

Learn: Modeling strategies. In most cases, we learn how to do something better if we seesomeone else do it before we have to do it ourselves. For this reason, modeling is another importantway that coaches help teachers get ready to implement strategies. Interviews with coaches have ledto the identification of several ways in which strategies may be modeled [25]. For example, a coachmay go into a teacher’s classroom and model the strategy in front of the students. In such situations,teachers have reported that they prefer that coaches just model the strategy and not teach the entirelesson; teachers will likely learn more if they observe the model with the checklist in hand. Coachescould also co-teach, with the teacher explaining the content and the coach setting up the activity. Forsome strategies, coaches can demonstrate the strategy without any students in class. Additionally,the teacher could go to another teacher’s classroom to see how to implement jigsaw by watchinganother teacher implement the strategy, or the teacher could watch video of a teacher using the strategy.Sometimes more than one of these versions of modeling is used.

Application to Visible Learning. As is the case with explaining strategies, coaches need to havea deep understanding of Visible Learning in order to model strategies. Teachers who see a teachingstrategy taught a certain way will naturally attempt to teach it that way. Our research suggests that theuse of video is an extremely powerful tool for coaches to assess how effectively they are implementingpractices, and that is consistent with Hattie’s finding that micro-teaching with video (d = 0.88) is ahigh-impact strategy.

Coaches also need to ensure that the alternatives to in-class modeling (such as visiting a teacherimplementing a strategy or watching a video of a teacher implementing a strategy) provide excellentdemonstrations of Visible Learning. Coaches can foster and support high-quality implementationof Visible Learning by identifying teachers who are successfully implementing this construct or bybuilding a library of videos of teachers effectively demonstrating Visible Learning practices.

4.3. Improve

Improve: Making adaptations to meet goals. The first time a teacher implements a strategy, itusually does not lead to the students meeting the goal. For that reason alone, coaches play an essentialrole in supporting implementation because they can encourage and support the teacher when he orshe might otherwise be about to give up on a given strategy. During each conversation in the Improvestage, coaches should begin by confirming that they and the teacher are concerned with the sameissues. Coaches might ask questions such as “What’s on your mind?” [41] and “Given the time wehave today, what’s the most important thing for us to talk about?” [42].

Following this, the coach and teacher should discuss what progress is being made toward thegoal. The coach or teacher might assess student writing with the help of a rubric to see how closethe students are to the goal; teacher and coach might also discuss how effectively various teachingstrategies, such as worked to ensure students are learning the content they need to write effectiveparagraphs. To monitor progress, coaches could ask questions such as the following.

Review Progress

What has gone well?What are you seeing that shows this strategy is successful?What progress has been made toward the goal?What did you learn?What surprised you? (Steve Barkley, personal conversation, 2009)What roadblocks are you running into?

It is rare for a goal to be met without some adaptations. In most cases, the coach and teacher willneed to do some creative problem solving to meet the goal. For example, the teacher might explainthat he or she needs some additional strategies to increase student knowledge either for variety orbecause jigsaw is not empowering students to meet the goal. The teacher or coach might then come upwith other strategies such as concept diagrams or peer coaching to support student learning.

Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 101 13 of 16

In some cases, teachers might determine that they have the correct strategy but recognize that theway the strategy is being used needs to be modified to be effective. This might happen, for example,when a teacher has dramatically modified how a strategy is being implemented and then realizes thatthe way he or she teaches it needs to be closer to how it was described on the original checklist.

In addition, teacher and coach may determine that the goal needs to be changed. After looking atstudents’ writing, the teacher might determine, for example, that 80% of the students getting five outfive correct was too conservative a goal and decide instead that the goal should be 90% of the studentsget five out five on the rubric three times in a row. Additionally, the teacher, in conversation with thecoach, might decide that the rubric needs to be modified to better assess student performance.

One final option is to determine that no adaptations are needed. Even though the goal has notbeen hit, the coach and teacher may determine that if they continue to use the strategy, it will eventuallylead to the goal without modification. Sometimes no change is the best way forward.

The last part of the Improve stage is for the coach and teacher to plan next steps. In general, it isbetter to over- than to under-plan. Teaching is complex work, and plans can easily get lost in the midstof everything else that teachers need to accomplish. Effective planning makes it much more likelythat strategies will be implemented. Some questions coaches can ask to promote careful planning arelisted below.

Plan Next Actions

When should we meet again?What tasks have to be done before we meet?When will those tasks be done?What will you do next in pursuit of your goal?On a scale of 1–5, how committed are you to this goal now?

Application to Visible Learning. During the Improve stage, coaches are more effective if theycan suggest additional elements of Visible Learning to support teachers in helping their students meetgoals. For example, a teacher who implements jigsaw to help students master core concepts in amathematics class may find that he or she needs to implement classroom management strategies forjigsaw to work effectively [43]. Coaches need to ensure that the suggestions they make during theImprove stage are appropriate for each teacher and his or her students. For example, the effect size fortime on task is not as robust as other practices, but it could be very important in a classroom wheretime on task is less that 60%.

Finally, the Improve stage is an opportunity for coach and teacher to explore how the variouscomponents of Visible Learning may be combined to increase impact. Although teachers cannot learnall elements of Visible Learning at one time, the more they implement more of the factors identified inthe 10 mindframes summarized above, the greater impact they will have on student learning.

Once a cycle has been completed, coach and teacher can begin a new cycle if time permits. Overtime, the teacher will learn more about Visible Learning by implementing it; that is, by using theapproach to help their students meet powerful goals. Ultimately, the goal is for the teacher to be ableto move through the cycle—analyzing reality, setting goals, identifying and learning strategies, andmaking modifications—with minimal help from the coach. When teachers learn to draw on all of thefactors embodied in the 10 mindframes identified by Hattie and Zierer [4], Visible Learning will stopbeing merely an idea and truly become a reality.

5. Conclusions

Instructional coaching is not a strategy-specific approach to professional learning. Any teachingstrategy or instructional program may be implemented through instructional coaching [44]. Whatmatters is that teachers learn new strategies in the context of their day-to-day work, helping studentsattain higher achievement and greater well-being. When teachers work on powerful goals that matterto them, and they partner with coaches who have a deep understanding of the strategies being learned

Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 101 14 of 16

and who provide adaptive support for professional learning when needed, research moves from beinga “nice” idea to being a central part of what happens in schools. And when powerful research likeVisible Learning is implemented widely and successfully, students are much more likely to succeed.

This paper is intended to open the door to further study of instructional coaching and VisibleLearning. It is an exploration of how instructional coaching could be employed to supportimplementation of Visible Learning, but further studies are needed on the particular aspects ofinstructional coaching and Visible Learning. Specifically, further study needs to be conducted on theimpact instructional coaching can have on implementation of Visible Learning and the impact thatinstructional coaching and Visible Learning, in tandem, can have on student achievement.

More focused studies addressing micro-elements of coaching are also recommended. For example,studies that address differences in implementation between goal-directed coaching and coachingfocused on implementation support or studies that explore the impact of instructional playbooks onteacher implementation would be very helpful.

A major concern that needs serious consideration is a challenge at the heart of any form ofprofessional development for Visible Learning. That is, the construct of Visible Learning is anintegrated approach to instruction, captured in the 10 mindframes, rather than a list of things to tryone-by-one. However, the research conducted utilizing lean-design research suggests that teachers aremore likely to adopt and continue to implement strategies when they want to meet a student-focusedgoal. Therefore, thought and study needs to be given to how to share all of Visible Learning in a waythat is manageable and a part of goal-directed learning.

The research conducted at the Kansas Coaching Project has made one thing clear: Supportingteachers in their implementation of evidence-based practices is much more complex than simplyholding a workshop and expecting teachers to implement certain practices. Professional developmentthat fosters genuine professional learning and leads to real improvements in the classroom has toposition teachers as partners, and be job-embedded, explicit, and adaptive.

Funding: This research was funded by GEAR UP, 84.334A; 84.334S, a grant program designed to increase thenumber of low-income students who are prepared to enter and succeed in postsecondary education. It was alsofunded by the Institute of Education Science (IES), whose mission is to provide scientific evidence on which toground education practice and policy.

Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

1. Jacob, A.; McGovern, K. The Mirage: Confronting the Hard Truth about Our Quest for Teacher Development; TNTP:Reimagine Teaching: Brooklyn, NY, USA, 2015.

2. Hattie, J. Visible Learning; Routledge: London, UK, 2009.3. Hattie, J. Visible Learning for Teachers; Routledge: London, UK, 2012.4. Hattie, J.; Zierer, K. Ten Mindframes for Visible Learning: Teaching for Success; Routledge: New York, NY,

USA, 2018.5. Hattie, J.; Clarke, S. Visible Learning Feedback; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2019.6. Frey, N.; Hattie, J.; Fisher, D.B. Developing Assessment—Capable Visible Learners, Grades K-12: Maximizing Skill,

Will and Thrill; Corwin: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018.7. Frey, N.; Hattie, J.; Fisher, D.B. Visible Learning for Literacy, Grades K-12: Implementing the Practices that Work

Best to Accelerate Student Learning; Corwin: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016.8. Almarode, J.; Fisher, D.B.; Frey, N.; Hattie, J. Visible Learning for Science: What Works Best to Optimize Student

Learning; Corwin: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018.9. Eells, R. Meta-Analysis of the Relationship between Collective Efficacy and Student Achievement.

Ph.D. Thesis, Loyola University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA, 2011, unpublished.10. Knight, J. Another damn thing we’ve got to do: Teacher perceptions of professional development. In

Proceedings of the 2000 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans,LA, USA, 24–28 April 2000.

Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 101 15 of 16

11. Knight, J. Partnership learning: Putting conversation at the heart of professional development. In Proceedingsof the 1999 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, QC, Canada,19–23 April 1999.

12. Bernstein, R.J. Beyond Relativism and Objectivity; University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, PA,USA, 1983.

13. Block, P. Stewardship: Choosing Service over Self-Interest; Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.: San Francisco, CA,USA, 1996.

14. Bohm, B. On Dialogue; Routledge: London, UK, 1996.15. Eisler, R. The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future; Harper Collins Publishers: San Francisco, CA,

USA, 1987.16. Freire, P. Pedagogy of the Oppressed; Bloomsbury: New York, NY, USA, 1968.17. Senge, P. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization; Currency, Doubleday: New York,

NY, USA, 1990.18. Knight, J. Learning consulting: Translating research into practice. Stratenotes 1998, 7, 1–3.19. Knight, J. Instructional coaches make progress through partnership: Intensive support can improve teaching.

Natl. Staff Dev. Counc. 2004, 25, 32–37.20. Knight, J. Instructional Coaching: A Partnership Approach to Improving Instruction; Corwin: Thousand Oaks,

CA, USA, 2007.21. Lenz, K.; Bulgren, J.; Schumaker, J.; Deshler, D.; Boudah, D. The Unit Organizer Routine, 1st ed.; Edge

Enterprises, Inc.: Lawrence, KS, USA, 1993.22. Cornett, J.; Knight, J. Studying the impact of instructional coaching. In Proceedings of the 2009 Annual

Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, USA, 13–17 April 2009.23. Bradley, B.A.; Harvey, S.; Knight, J.; Hock, M.; Skrtic, T.M.; Deshler, D.; Brasseur-Hock, I. Improving

instructional coaching to support middle school teachers in the United States. In Educational DesignResearch—Part B: Introduction and Illustrative Cases; Plomp, T., Nievee, N., Eds.; SLO: Enschede,The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 299–318.

24. Ries, E. The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically SuccessfulBusinesses; Crown Publishing Group: New York, NY, USA, 2011.

25. Knight, J. The Impact Cycle; Corwin: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018.26. Cornett, J.; Knight, J. Research on coaching: An overview of the literature. In Coaching: Approaches and

Perspectives; Corwin: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 192–216.27. Knight, J.; Cornett, J.; Skrtic, T.; Kennedy, M.; Novosel, L.; Mitchell, B. Understanding attributes of effective

coaches. In Proceedings of the 2010 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association,Denver, CO, USA, 30 April–4 May 2010.

28. Knight, J. Unmistakable Impact: A Partnership Approach for Dramatically Improving Instruction; Corwin:Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2011.

29. Knight, J. High-Impact Instruction: A Framework for Great Teaching; Corwin: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013.30. Knight, J. Focus on Teaching: Using Video for High-Impact Instruction; Corwin: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014.31. Knight, J. Better Conversations: Coaching Ourselves and Each other to be more Credible, Caring, and Connected;

Corwin: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016.32. Halvorson, H.G. No One Understands You and What to Do about It; Harvard Business Review Press: Boston,

MA, USA, 2015.33. Heath, C.; Heath, D. Switch: How to Change Things when Change is Hard; Broadway Books: New York, NY,

USA, 2010.34. Lopez, S.J. Making Hope Happen: Create the Future You Want for Yourself and Others; Atria: New York, NY,

USA, 2014.35. Knight, D.; Hock, M.; Skrtic, T.M.; Bradley, B.A.; Knight, J. Evaluation of video-based instructional coaching

for middle school teachers: Evidence from a multiple-baseline study. Educ. Forum 2018, 76, 50–51. [CrossRef]36. Fisher, D.B.; Frey, N.; Hattie, J. Teaching Literacy in the Visible Learning Classroom, Grades K-5, 1st ed.; Corwin:

Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016.37. Campbell, J.; Van Nieuwerburgh, C. The Leader’s Guide to Coaching in Schools: Creating Conditions for Effective

Learning; Corwin: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2018.38. Gawande, A. The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right; Metropolitan Books: New York, NY, USA, 2011.

Educ. Sci. 2019, 9, 101 16 of 16

39. Haertel, E. The valid use of student performance measures for teacher evaluation. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal.1986, 8, 45–61. [CrossRef]

40. Knight, J.; Thomas, S.; Harris, M.; Hoffman, A. The Instructional Playbook: The Missing Link in ProfessionalDevelopment; One Fine Bird Press: Lawrence, KS, USA, 2019, in press.

41. Stanier, M.B. The Coaching Habit: Say Less, Ask More and Change the Way You Lead Forever; Box of CrayonsPress: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2016.

42. Scott, S. Fierce Conversations: Achieving Success at Work and in Life, One Conversation at a Time; BerkleyPublishing Group: New York, NY, USA, 2002.

43. Hattie, J.; Fisher, D.B.; Frey, N. Visible Learning for Mathematics: What Works Best to Optimize Student Learning;Corwin: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2016.

44. Sprick, R.; Knight, J. Involving teachers in schoolwide behavior policy. Educ. Leadersh. 2018, 76, 48–53.

© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open accessarticle distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).